Quote

There are a lot of magazines that are still sort of... that only cater to a certain demographic and only put certain people on their covers.

You look at, like, a 'People' magazine, which used to be a really good, you know, nice magazine you could go to for real stories. It wasn't like a 'Star' or an 'US Weekly' and they have somebody with plastic surgery on the cover, Heidi Montag. And it's obviously what consumers want, because why else would they be doing it?

It's very hard to find critics or a magazine today that will publish material that is genuinely independent and written without any concern about being cut off some distributor's list or not be invited or flown into screenings.

There are many traditionally published authors who have hated the cover their publisher's decided on. Or the title or the marketing or the advertising. But there was nothing they could do about it.

The thing is that any sophistication I have, aesthetically, comes from 'Vogue' and 'Harper's Bazaar.' In the '60s, I never missed an issue, even if I had to steal to get them.

I have a sentimental feeling for my very first cover I was on - it was 'Bazaar' Magazine.

Magazines that depend on photography, and design, and long reads, and quality stuff, are going to do just fine despite the Internet and cable news.

I think the response I get to one 'New Yorker' cover outweighs five books that I publish.

Marc Almond has done a couple of covers, a few people in Europa have done them. I own all the publishing. It's never really been addressed, as I haven't had the time to go out and tout the songs.

So many differing opinions and philosophies... are rarely housed under the roof of a single magazine.